Two times since the all-star break... *Edit 3 times now

[Reveille1984]

Bunting is one of the dumbest things in baseball.  Giving up outs is about the worst thing to do if you actually want to score runs.

[JarsOfClay]

Beat me to the punch

Im actually for bunting. But usually on here people are against it

Some day trout will try and steal a base, get thrown out, and we'll kick a hole in our drywall because of sosh's stupid ass sending him

 

there is a good time for bunting and a bad time.  i dont get why people group up every bunt situation like they're all the same.

 

bunting in the 2nd inning like scioscia commonly did/does was stupid.

 

not bunting in the 8th inning with the winning run on 2nd and no outs like scioscia commonly does....is stupid.

[nando714]

Remember when Scioscia was chastised to no end for giving away outs via sacrifice bunts?

Good times

I will giveaway 1 out for a go ahead run late in a game.

Sosh lost that Seattle game.

[Stradling]

I actually agree with the point the OP is trying to make. I wasn't able to pay attention to the game on Saturday night, but my understanding is that Howie lead off the ninth inning of a tie game with a double. If that is true then you HAVE to bunt him over. I completely understand the idea that it only slightly increases your chances of scoring one run and really prohibits your chances of scoring multiple runs, but in that situation, you only need one run. I also don't have an issue with bunting a little earlier if it allows your pitcher to settle in and pitch with a lead. There was some debate last week or maybe two weeks ago whether or not he should have had Cowgill bunt when he took it off his face. I have zero problem with that bunt either to give the team a four run lead. Obviously you don't bunt if you are down multiple runs, but if I was the home team, I would even bunt in the eighth inning if I was down a run to try and tie it. I'm sure you can come up with stats that support your side, but I have watched plenty of baseball the last 35 years to know that my beliefs are founded in logic.

[Docwaukee]

Bunting:

 

- when a very poor hitter or pitcher is at the plate with a guy on first and you need just one run to win.  Also assuming that the guy on first can't steal, and that the guy hitting next isn't better off walked to face the guy after him with a better matchup. 

 

so if Navarro is on base and Mcdonald is at the plate with Calhoun and Trout coming up.  And there is no pinch hitter available for Mcdonald.  And it's in the ninth inning.  And we are tied.  Maybe if we are down by a run.    

[Stradling]

there is a good time for bunting and a bad time. i dont get why people group up every bunt situation like they're all the same.

bunting in the 2nd inning like scioscia commonly did/does was stupid.

not bunting in the 8th inning with the winning run on 2nd and no outs like scioscia commonly does....is stupid.

Man, I started reading your post and I was like, yea, I am finally going to agree with JarsofClay, then you became you again and talk about things like they happen all the time. There is absolutely no way that Mike commonly does or doesn't do either of those things you say he does or doesn't do. What would be your definition of commonly, two or three times a season? How many times do you think Mike has had them sacrifice in the second inning of a game?

[Stradling]

Bunting:

- when a very poor hitter or pitcher is at the plate with a guy on first and you need just one run to win. Also assuming that the guy on first can't steal, and that the guy hitting next isn't better off walked to face the guy after him with a better matchup.

so if Navarro is on base and Mcdonald is at the plate with Calhoun and Trout coming up. And there is no pinch hitter available for Mcdonald. And it's in the ninth inning. And we are tied. Maybe if we are down by a run.

Sorry Doc, you are usually spot on and I usually respect your opinions, but this opinion is just wrong. There is a reason they have bunted for 100 years, because there are times and places for it. I will say this though, with how poor we have become at the fundamentals in baseball, the bunt will become less and less effective. I don't know how many people remember when we had players like Tim Foli and Bob Boone on the team, but they weren't great players with the bat. What they did do well were the little things, kind of like Eckstein. So when guys like that played if there was a lead off double, Foli would bunt them over to third and Boone would get the run in with a sac fly or a groundball to the middle of the diamond.

[xboom28x]

there is a good time for bunting and a bad time.  i dont get why people group up every bunt situation like they're all the same.

 

bunting in the 2nd inning like scioscia commonly did/does was stupid.

 

not bunting in the 8th inning with the winning run on 2nd and no outs like scioscia commonly does....is stupid.

 

I'm glad the Angels had the 'extra' out by not bunting last night.

[Lou]

runs scored in the 8th inning count for more than runs in the 2nd

[maximus p]

In a vacuum, man on 2nd no outs is 5% more likely to score, than man 3rd one out.  I researched it a couple of weeks ago:  ~60% vs. ~55%.

[moccasin]

In a vacuum, man on 2nd no outs is 5% more likely to score, than man 3rd one out.  I researched it a couple of weeks ago:  ~60% vs. ~55%.

55.5% is the percentage that a man on 3rd less than two outs scores via the hitter driving him in. You also must add the second chance they get with 2 outs, runner on third, and the scoring with wild pitch.

[Lou]

then you would have to add in the times where the runner on 2nd scores with one out and two outs as well. 

 

That is,  using your math

Edited July 25, 2014 by Lou

[moccasin]

then you would have to add in the times where the runner on 2nd scores with one out and two outs as well. 

 

That is,  using your math

No, the runner on second with one and two outs is included already.

The numbers I saw on fangraphs a while ago were 63% vs 67%.

As someone pointed out, bunting to move the runner to third base is effective, although it's marginal.

 

I mean, you should be smart enough to know that a runner on second does not score 60% of the time in the next AB.

That's basically assuming that the next hitter hits around .600.

Edited July 25, 2014 by moccasin

[Lou]

that was my point when I said using your math.

Why they would use different methodologies to calculate the two scenarios is disingenuous

[moccasin]

that was my point when I said using your math.

Why they would use different methodologies to calculate the two scenarios is disingenuous

People make numbers lie to prove their point all the time.

maximusp probably didn't mean to though. I just wanted to point it out.

[maximus p]

55.5% is the percentage that a man on 3rd less than two outs scores via the hitter driving him in. You also must add the second chance they get with 2 outs, runner on third, and the scoring with wild pitch.

No, the research takes into effect of the entire 3 outs per inning.

 

http://books.google.com/books?id=1s7TpKpGWPMC&pg=PA78&lpg=PA78&dq=percentage+of+scoring,+man+on+2nd+no+outs+versus+man+on+3rd+one+out&source=bl&ots=KIegp-XqgW&sig=Efa9BiiQSxDj80Einua2e0iIYTQ&hl=en&sa=X&ei=YAnSU6jzO8jjoATDy4HgAw&ved=0CEYQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=percentage%20of%20scoring%2C%20man%20on%202nd%20no%20outs%20versus%20man%20on%203rd%20one%20out&f=false

 

just scroll down a bit for the chart.

Edited July 25, 2014 by maximus p

[maximus p]

People make numbers lie to prove their point all the time.

maximusp probably didn't mean to though. I just wanted to point it out.

http://books.google.com/books?id=1s7TpKpGWPMC&pg=PA78&lpg=PA78&dq=percentage+of+scoring,+man+on+2nd+no+outs+versus+man+on+3rd+one+out&source=bl&ots=KIegp-XqgW&sig=Efa9BiiQSxDj80Einua2e0iIYTQ&hl=en&sa=X&ei=YAnSU6jzO8jjoATDy4HgAw&ved=0CEYQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=percentage%20of%20scoring%2C%20man%20on%202nd%20no%20outs%20versus%20man%20on%203rd%20one%20out&f=false

I didn't make the numbers up.